On Thursday 18 September 2008 03:24:47 b.n. wrote: > > The only case I can think of where _really_ problems might arise is the > > (very rare) situation which I had described: That the ./configure script > > of X builds X without errors but also without support for Y if only 1.2.2 > > of Y is installed: > > Then neither later upgrading of Y nor revdep-rebuild will show anything > > suspicious, although X does not behave in the intended way. > > Very clear, thanks. > This is, technically, a bug in the ./configure ,however, isn't it?
That's my thinking too. The correct action would be to patch the ./configure and submit the patches upstream so everyone benefits. But it's not always so easy. For example, I build e17 from svn and keep my own custom overlay for it. Most packages have --enable- options but some features are automagically detected at configure time, which leads to the exact problem described above, and it has happened to me. So it's not a theoretical possibility but a real (albeit rare) one. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
